Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-05-11 City Council Summary Minutes1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY OF PALO ALTO Regular Meeting Monday, May 11, 1981 ITEM Oral Communications Approval of Minutes of March 9, 1981 Presentation re Flood Control by John T. O'Halloran, General Manager, Santa Clara Valley Water District Consent Calendar 334 Cowper - Motion to Cont :..ue Referral Items 1981-82 Budget Referral to Finance and Public Works Committee Action Items Award of Contract - Officials for 1981 Softball Season Acceptance of Additional Funding For Housing Improvement Program Through State Deferred Loan Program Ordinance re Alma Street Properties (2nd Reading) Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Exchange of Property Parking Lot E - Northern California Savings Charming Market - 532 Ctanning Avenue - Request for Demolition Councilmember Eyerly- re Questions about European Health Spa Problems Adjournment PAGE 8 2 6 8 2 6 8 2 6 8 2 8 8 2 8 8 2 8 8 2 8 8 2 8 8 2 8 8 2 8 8 2 9 8 3. 1 8 3 .2 8 2 5 5/11/81. Regular Meeting Monday, May 11, 1981 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:40 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Klein, Renzel, Witherspoon, Eyerly, Levy Mayor Henderson made the following announcements: Are executive session regarding Personnel and Litigation would be held at the end of the meeting. Tire League of Women Voters was continuing its survey to ascertain the amount of people listening to the broadcast. Accordingly, he encouraged people to call, Friday, May 15, at 9:30 a.m., a group would be meeting at the Los Trancos Parking Lot to survey the various parking suggestions made by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, and Nanette Hanko requested that Couneilmem.bers attend. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Audrey Poulter, Palo Alto, said the peeking 'problems at the European Health Spa had riot changed since the petition was pre- sented in September and said there were numerous other Municipal Code violations, i.e. noise, etc. After the Council meeting in March, she was verbally harassed by a Spa patron about the rights of spa members. She requested that either permit parking be installed and hire a monitor, or direct staff to report back to Council a practical and inexpensive way to solve the problem. MINUTES OF MARCH 9 1981 Councilmember Menzel had a correction on page 705, fifth full paragraph, third line, delete the word "using" and insert "cross-checking the-." Fourth line, delete the words "the combined." Fifth line, "woul" should be ':would," and delete the words "be sufficient" and insert "minimize errors." Councilmember-Klein had a correction on page 701, fifth para- grapfl., second lire, delete the words "Golf Course Study and." Councilmember Fazzino had a correction on page 712, second para- graph from the bottom, add at the end of the first sentence "regarding his economic program." MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded minutes of March 9, 1981 be approved as amended. MOTION PASSED. by a vote of 9-0. PRESENTATION RE FLOOD CONTROL BY -JOHN WKWAMg, 3AWIA GLAR by Fazzino. , that . . O' HALLORAN GENERAL Mr. O'Halloran advised that the Santa Clara Valley Water District was presenting a. Benefit Assessment District and would be holding a public hearing on June 9 to consider whether to proceed. The Benefit Assessment 'District was being consIdered because the State had authorized use of the benefit assessment. He said, SCVWD is faced with a loss of approximately 55 percent of its revenues and that while the benefit assessment would not bring them baCA' to pre -13 levels, it. would bring them to about 80 percent of it and ' i t would .. enable them to : protect the projects already in the ground and to increase maintenance. George Car eau, Water District Flood Control Operations, said the District had a three-part program as follows: 1. SCVWD works to cure flood problems. The potential for damage to existing development in the County was about $400 million bated on a single one percent event. 2. Maintenance of existing facilities. There was about $150 million of facilities already installed both by the District and by developers and as mandated by city building regula- tions. The District's maintenance activities amounted to about $1.5 million per year and they have been trying to catch up with that problem. He said a more realistic main- tenance figure would be about $3 million annually. 3. SCVWO conducts land deveiopment planning efforts in conjunc- tion with the cities and the County whereby the cities --send them development proposals, they review them, advise on flood hazard, possibilities for mitigation, etc., which costs about $1 million annually. Mr. Carbeau said the District's budget was not sufficient to carry on a reasonable program. Their annual income was about $6 million .and only about $4 million could be devoted to the various problems. An optimum income for the District would be about $14. million. SCVWD proposed to help make up that figure by recom- mending the assessment procedure, which was installed by the State legislature in 1979. He said the District had put together a formula which assessed everyone. The assessment unit was defined as the single-family urban resident, who would pay approximately $12 per year, which would be in addition to the District's share of the property tax. He said property tax was limited to $4 per $100 and before Propo- sition 13, County -wise tax was about $13 per $100. The Dis- trict's share of the $4 per .$100 on the average single-family urban residence amounted to approximately $28 per year, Mr. _Carbeau explained the Palo Alto flood basin was a project which was partially constructed in the past. The Federal Insurance Administration had toripleted studies in the County and had identified floodable areas. He said Palo Alto was in the Northwest zone, and of the $400 million of potential damage County -wide, the Northwest zone had a potential of $50 million worth of damage from a one percent flood. Councilmernber Witherspoon asked if the assessment district required voter approval , and if so, would i te require two-thirds or'' majori ty vote. Mr. Carbeau answered yes and that it would require a majority vote. Counc i lmemher Bechtel asked for a projected cost of speci f c pro- jects being proposed for flood control measures and where the most dollars would be spent for the projects. Mr. Carbeau said in' the Northwest zone, projects were proposed on Adobe Creek, Barron Creek and the Palo Alto Flood Basin, which were the most significant damage potential: centers. 2ot'nc i 1member Fletcherasked the nature of the activity along the creeks that run. through Palo Alto. Mr. Carbeau said that Barron- Creek from Gunn ; High School to El Camino, was contained in a storm drain pipe under the street. The District felt that was inadequate and the Federal Insurance Administration concurred. They proposed to put a parallel pipe- line under the: street to Carry the excess flows. . Adobe Creek's $.2 7 5/11/81 1 1 right of way was constricted and was in the backyards of homes. The District proposed to raise the flood walls on each side. Mayor Henderson thanked Mr. O'Halloran and Mr. Carbeau. CONSENT CALENDAR 334 Cowper - Continued to May 18. •w_ a_�a�r��rsrrr�n.r��r� MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Klein, that Item No. 7, the Final Subdivision Map for 334 Cowper Street, be removed from the consent calendar and be continued t.o May 18. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 9-0. Councilmember Renzel asked to remove Item 4, Exchange of Property — Parking Lot E - Northern California Savings. Referral Items 1981-82 Budget Referral to Finance and Public Works Committee Action Items Officials for 1981 Softball Season Award of Contract - Darwin a awa2r Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Darwin G. Gallaway. AGREEMENT - SERVICES FOR OFFICIATING AT SOFTBALL GAMES Acc��e tance of Additional Fundina For Housing Im rovement Program .II.rlWr4fi41 Ir�ounO a to e f rapt ban r�rr•arn MR:2-62:: l�1r.rr_I.rr�rd�ellrr�r .9M�1 lrlrrrs - Staff recommends that the Council authorize the City Manager .or his designated representative to sign the Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 80-HRL-55 with the State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development to accept $20,000 in addi- tional funding for the HIP and that Council,adopt a resolution. RESOLUTION 5909 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE C TY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION CF THE STANDARD AGREEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS TO SECURE DEFERRED PAYMENT LOAN FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA" ORDINANCE RE ALMA. STREET PROPERTIES (Second Reading, First reading 4-77TBIr ORDINANCE 3281 en,Jtled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY --OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS ALMA STREET PROPER- TIES (20 PARCELS) BETWEEN K:NGSLEY AND CO:LERIDGE) FROM R-2 TO RM-2" MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Levy, that the Consent Calendar as amended be approved. MOTION ION 'PASSED by a vote of 9-0 except ordinance re Alma Street Propertieswhich passed by a vote of 5-4, Eye -Iy,. Renzel, Levy end Witherspoon voting "no." �G A.A O N ES ,ADOITIQNS AND DELETIOMS Mayor Henderson added 532 Channing Avenue (Channing Market), under Counci'I Matters. EXCANGE OF PROPERTY Parkin' Lot E - Northern California ar ngs 8"2 $ 5/11/81 Staff recommends that Council adopt a Resolution of Intent to make Changes and Modifications and to set a public hearing for June 15, 1981. Councilmember Renzel had a question regarding the relative values of the property since the lot the City would be receiving was further away from the downtown area compared to the lot that Northern California Savings would be receiving. She wondered if the City looked at swapping so that Northern California Savings had two further away lots and the City had the closer inland. Jean Diaz, Real Property Administrator, responded for Northern California Savings, that it made sense to have NCS' parking to serve their clients near to their building; and from the City's view, the ingress and egress, lined up exactly with Parking Lot G, which would be an improvement in the circulation pattern in the public parking lots. In terms of value, there is no adverse effect to the City. Councilmember Eyerly said that since he )s a member of the Downtown Assessment District he would not participate. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Fazzino, that the staff recommendation be approved. RESOLUTION 5908 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF —PALO ALTO RESOLVING ITS INTENTION TO MAKE CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS - UNIVERSITY AVENUE AREA OFFSTREET PI,RKING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 52-14" MOTION PASSED, by a vote of 7-1, RenzeF voting "no," Eyerly not participating. CHANNING MARKET - 532 Channin Avenue - Re uest for Demolition Mayor Henderson asked how the Council could waive the 60 -day requirement, if it desired. City Attorney -:Abrams, said the Council could amend the existing ordinance. He stated that the ordinance would fall under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.49.070, the Historic Preservation ordinance, which deals with demolition of historic designated buildings, buildings, and which prevents the building official from taking any action on an -application for demolition prior to 60 days following receipt of a completed application, and submittal tc the Council through the packet, of a photo of the building to be demolition. Further, any interested party may request extension of the moratorium for a period up to six months. He said that at the time the ordinance was adopted`, staff believed that the sixty-day period and potential extension to six months, was mandatory and it could not be waived by the Coin:cis nor did it depend -'upon review of another planning permit. The only other method .would be for the Council to move that it was its intention at the time of adoption of the ordinance to allow other dates to be established in certain situations, such as where it had previously approved a planning application.` City Manager Zaner, said there was a . structure . to the rear of the bu Tiding which might be cunstrued to not be . under the ordinance, wht,,ch might be removrd and - allow the work to move. Fred Herman, Chief Building Official, said that the main Channing Market was a two-story building which contained both the market and units. upstairs. There was a one-story section to the rear which -was added for storage. The, City's records showed that he historical significance of the building was (1) its use as a market; and (2) the facade. He said than ,'the rear portion was neither and that when he spoketo the Chairman of the "Historical ' Resources Board, she said she would poll the other members of the Board to see if they agreed that the rear portion was not of historic significance and could be removed, .. :allowing Mr. 8 2 9 5/11/el 1 1 Edelstein to go ahead with the building. Gail Wooley, Chairman of the Historic Resources Board, said she took a poll of four members, one mernber was out of town, and that the four members agreed unanimously that the significance was with the facade and that removal of the back structure even if in sixty -days some benefactor came forth would not detract from the historical significance of the building. Mr. Edelstein, Channing Associates, said they needed an agreement. that they could not only remove that portion, but lift the remaining portion of the structure and move it toward the west boundary. He said that there was a curving ramp and the main part of the building sat in about half of the 18 foot ramp going down. He said they could work around it, but it would be less costly to pick the structure up and.move it to the right so they would only have to excavate once. - Councilmember Witherspoon stated that she would be reluctant to try and second-guess or rewrite Council's intentions of the ordi- nance. She would be .willing to demolish the back shed if the Historic Resources Committee approved it. Councilmember Klein was concerned about the procedure which resulted in the applicant not filing for the demolition permit. Mr. Herman said several applications were required. One was for utility removal, prior to that was a declaration of nontenancy to be sure the units are vacant prior to removing the utilities. Both forms were provided, but when utilities went out to pull the gas and electric meters, the buildings were occupied, The Building Department was notified, and they notified the devel- opers, who were to advise the Building Department when the buildings_ were vacated. Mr. Herman said they were not notified whoa the •buildings were vacated. Further, he said there was a Council ordinance which required that prior to demolition of an existing residential building, a building permit must be issued, which was also held up pending approval of the final construction drawings. Councilmember Fletcher did not feel, that demolishing the shed and Moving thefacade violated the ordinance. Councilmember Klein was concerned about staff's interpretation that historical buildings could be moved on a temporary basis under the ordinance. .- Mr. Abrams said it would have to be evaluated whether a structure could be moved without it falling apart and if the risk vere too great, it could not be moved. He said the ordinance did not prewrent a portion of a structure which is not within the historic designation from being demolished absent some further review of the source. Mr. Herman agreed with Mr. Abrams. .Further, he said, to issue a moving permit would not require any action from the political body orr staffother than a moving permit.; was required, but that he was not sure that the building could be moved safely. Mr. Abrams. stated, ,if no action were,taken and Mr. Herman informed Mr. Edelstein that movement of the structure would ' cause danger. to it, that would violate the intent of the ordinance. There., fore, it could not be moved. Mr. Herman stated that,he would prefer to see the building remain as is. He felt <that`-.MMr. Edelste i n. could work and start his new construction of the building where it was located by removing the rear shed and he felt that under the circumstances, that was fair. 8 3 O 5/11/81 Councilmember Fletcher wondered if Council had the option to find that the intent of the ordinance has been complied with. Mr. Abrams felt that the Council did have that option, but that was not the intent of the ordinance as drafted by the Historic Resources Board, Planning Division;_ and the City Attorney's Office. The intent was to require application by way of separate permit and to start a time running from the time the developer determined tie would demolish the building. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, that Council find that the intent of the Historic. Resources Preservation ordinance had been met and that the 60 -day period be eliminated in this instance. Councilmember Witherspoon said there was a great deal of public interest in preserving the use of the building, and if it were demolished immediately, there would be a lot of angry citizens. Councilmember Renzel did not feel it was a good policy to be interpreting Council's intent on an ad hoc basis, as projects come in. Although she sympathized with Mr. Edelstein's position, he could have applied for a permit which would have been valid shortly, She felt the Council would be doing a disservice to the law by trying to interpret it after the fact. Councilmember Levy felt that the substance of the ordinance had been conformed to and that it was the appearances which were delaying demolition. He asked about the City's liability if the motion were passed. Mr. Abrams said that if litigation were filed to prevent demoli- tion, the argument would exist in the person who desired to pre- vent it that the City's procedures had not been met. Councilmember Levy felt that the intent of the ordinance had been met and would felt they should allow the developer to take the action. Councilmember Eyerly felt that this could be interpreted as trying to circumvent the law. He felt that Mr. Edelstein had a compromise position which would rnaiee it possible for him to go ahead and remove the back shed and he felt that was the way they should go. . Councilmember Fazzino felt that Mr. Herman had come up with a reasonable proposal. He had concerns about formally approving a reinterpretation of an ordinance already passed. He encouraged that no action be taken. John Sutorius,. Vice Chairman of the Architectural Review Board (ARB), pointed out that the minutes of the ARB were regularly inserted into the packet and were readily available to the public. The meeting of •the ARB of. August 210. 1980, stated that the conditions of the approval were (1) landscaping; and (2) that the structure was not to be removed until March 1, 1981. The preamble relative to the demolition was that demolition not take place prior to March 1, 1981 in order to enable:.1-ri:.,Ads of the Market to pursue any move process. MOTION FAILED by a vote of "yes." COURCILKEKBER EYERLY RE Fletcher and Levy voting QUESTIONS ABOUT EUROPEAN HEALTH SPA Councilmember Eyerly. said that since the area tin El Camino was not part of the California Avenue Assessment District, he felt there were two alternatives to solving the problem and that no act,on could be taken -until thr painting of the stalls on the 8 3 I 5/11/81 other side of the street could be accomplished, and they see a trial for parking to he developed on the other side of El Camino to relieve parking which was impacting the neighborhood. He hoped that during that period of time staff could come back to the Council with a report or comments, which would include the need for an assessment district along El Camino for those estab- lishments that had a runoff into the neighborhoods at particular times of the day, and some advantages these businesses could gain Which would give them a willingness to form an assessment dis- trict. He thought it may have to be coupled with some sort of a resident parking, which Council had been playing with and delaying action on because of the impact on the general fund for setting up policing of parking districts. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned to executive session re litigation and person- nel matters at 9:00 p.m. Final adjournment at 10:30 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: Mayor 8 3 2 ``' 5/11/81